Forums

Makes me sick... Topic

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/8/2013 12:21:00 PM (view original):I'm just trying to make the point that those on the other side of the argument are exercising their beliefs as well. They may feel they have evidence, but it's still just their intepretation and what they choose to believe. There is no fact in this matter.

There are plenty of FACTS for those capable of critical thought. Based on the physics of this universe, we know the decay rate of certain isotopes and can use those FACTS to determine their age and thus, the age of the planet. If you wanna say, as some have, that "God" created the universe millions of years ago, and let it develop and the Bible simply fudged the dates because they didn't have a word for "millions of years"... OK, that combines the FACTS with their faith.

But to claim "there is no fact in this matter" is simply closing your eyes, covering your ears, and singing "Lalalalala..."

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/8/2013 1:46:00 PM (view original):So, during all that, did you concede that God might have created apes and decided he could do better after watching them for a few thousand/million years?

I conceded it's possible. Doesn't change my beliefs.

And since Todd cannot explain to us how he has determined the rate at which isotopes decay, that must mean he's trusting that the work and observation of others is correct. Much like I trust biblical evidence.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/8/2013 1:46:00 PM (view original):So, during all that, did you concede that God might have created apes and decided he could do better after watching them for a few thousand/million years?

I conceded it's possible. Doesn't change my beliefs.

And since Todd cannot explain to us how he has determined the rate at which isotopes decay, that must mean he's trusting that the work and observation of others is correct. Much like I trust biblical evidence.

Beliefs...beliefs...beliefs.

If a scientist who had determined the rate at which isotopes decay told you that the world is 4.5 billion years old, would you believe him then? He wouldn't be trusting the work and observation of anyone.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/8/2013 1:46:00 PM (view original):So, during all that, did you concede that God might have created apes and decided he could do better after watching them for a few thousand/million years?

I conceded it's possible. Doesn't change my beliefs.

And since Todd cannot explain to us how he has determined the rate at which isotopes decay, that must mean he's trusting that the work and observation of others is correct. Much like I trust biblical evidence.

Beliefs...beliefs...beliefs.

If a scientist who had determined the rate at which isotopes decay told you that the world is 4.5 billion years old, would you believe him then? He wouldn't be trusting the work and observation of anyone.

I know what the answer is - my point is I don't love this argument.

If a scientist who had determined the rate at which isotopes decay told you that the world is 10,000 years old, would you believe him then?

My "dumb as ****" comment was mocking bad_luck's use of the phrase earlier on.

I can find at least 20 points in this thread where I've said neither side knows anything conclusively. To some science = fact, and it doesn't. One could argue science is the religion of the non-religious - what people put their faith in so they can explain the universe. All power too them if that's what they want to believe, but they need to stop acting like it's a concrete fact.

Person A - The world is old. We've learned the rate at which radioactive isotopes decay, and by looking at them in rock, we can determine the age of said rock. Therefore, we can also determine the age of what's inside and around this rock. In addition, it appears that by doing this, we can see how humans and other animals have evolved over time.

Person B - The world is young, and there was no evolution, because the Bible says so, and you should trust the word of God.

I'm thinking for myself, and if forced to choose one, i decide that person A is most accurate. (And again, I believe that God does have a part when describing how life was formed.)

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/8/2013 1:46:00 PM (view original):So, during all that, did you concede that God might have created apes and decided he could do better after watching them for a few thousand/million years?

I conceded it's possible. Doesn't change my beliefs.

And since Todd cannot explain to us how he has determined the rate at which isotopes decay, that must mean he's trusting that the work and observation of others is correct. Much like I trust biblical evidence.

Beliefs...beliefs...beliefs.

The bible isn't evidence. It is a literary work designed to teach moral lessons that was created around 400 A.D. which of course was long after all of the stories described in it occurred (and thus none of the people that put the bible together actually witnessed any of the stories depicted in it). Those same people picked and chose what stories they wanted to include and what order those stories would be included in. The bible is not evidence of anything.

Once again, you're trusting that their analysis of the decay rate of isotopes is correct. The only true way to do that would be to actively observe rocks over a period of time, and then extrapolate the observed rate of decay over a longer period of time. That's like saying "I saw Ozzie Smith homer in a game once. Since he played in 2,573 games, I know FOR A FACT that he hit 2,573 HR in his career!"

Fact is, scientists have been actively using this technology for much to short of a time span to conclusively KNOW what the rate of decay over thousands or millions of years would be. It's their best guess based on what they know now.

Posted by bistiza on 2/8/2013 2:08:00 PM (view original):There it is - at least burnsy can admit he's a sheep following the majority opinion. Now if only the rest of you would follow suit.

When did I admit that? You are EXCELLENT at seeing **** that isn't actually there.

I apologize for looking at all the evidence available and making a decision. If you have additional evidence I don't know about, speak up.

When you say "I believe X...but sure, if more than 50% of scientists told me Z, I'd switch and believe that", it really doesn't paint you as anyone capable of critical thought. It makes you sound like someone who constantly shifts his beliefs based on majority opinion.